Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CENTRAL SOUTH CAMBRIDGE 015566-12 Date: 2013-01-10 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Janet Ann Bratton — and — Jason John Geil & Michel Connors

Before: Justice of the Peace James Ziegler

Heard: October 25th, 2012, November 8th, 2012 & November 29th, 2012

Reasons for Judgment Released: January 10th, 2013

Parties:

• Janet Bratton, Complainant on her own behalf and that of Thomas Bratton, Asher Geil and Courtney Geil [complainant's brother, child and former stepdaughter]
• Tania Harper, for the defendants Jason Geil & Michel Connors

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE ZIEGLER

Introduction

[1] This is an application for a Peace Bond by the complainant Janet Ann Bratton [Bratton] against Jason John Geil [Geil] and Michel Connors [Connors] where in an Information sworn July 12, 2012 Bratton she alleges that: "Jason John Geil and Michel Connors will cause personal injury to or will damage the property of Janet Ann Bratton, Thomas Bratton, Asher Geil and Courtney Geil on account of a threat made between the 7th day of June 2011 up to and including June 24, 2012 in the words or to the effect following, that is to say. 'Jason bulldozed the back lawn and Michel (Doberman was beside her) spray painted the side lawn and left barn beams under the tree.' Attached to this Information is Appendix "A" which lists specific events in chronological order.

[2] The list of events in Appendix "A" do not in and of themselves provide proof sufficient to find grounds for a peace bond. These 18 events are part of what needs to be considered in determining whether a peace bond should be ordered, in conjunction with the evidence heard on the application.

[3] Section 810 of the Criminal Code provides that an information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or common-law partner or child or other person or will damage his or her property.

[4] An application for a Peace Bond is not a criminal offence but rather is the request for a recognizance against a named person or persons for the cessation of conduct which gives rise to the fear. The application is decided on the balance of probabilities and if found in favour of the complainant does not give rise to a criminal conviction against the defendant although he or she must comply with an order of recognizance. However, the breach of that recognizance would give rise to a criminal charge under section 811 of the Criminal Code and a conviction under section 811 would be a criminal offence and thereby create a criminal record.

Background Facts

[5] The eye catching allegation of bulldozing the back lawn and spray painting the side lawn turns out to be a true occurrence with a lot of background that needed to be heard before reaching a conclusion. Part of that background which I accept on the evidence of all parties can be summarized as follows:

Bratton and Geil were married October 9, 2004. Geil had children from a previous marriage which included a now deceased son and a now adult daughter Courtney Geil. While married the couple purchased a farm located at 1943 Roseville Road Cambridge Ontario and in respect to which Bratton currently pays the outstanding mortgage. Bratton and Geil separated December 10, 2010. Bratton continues to live in the farm house with their son Asher born May 18, 2009. Geil took up with Michel Connors sometime before or after the separation which was not known to Bratton until June 7th, 2011. Geil and Bratton entered into a separation agreement on November 7th, 2011, which amongst other things divided various properties, dealt with child custody and access and in exchange for a onetime payment of $200,000.00 Bratton was to transfer her interest in the farm property to Geil. Financing was arranged to pay Bratton out and transfer the deed to Geil alone, but a lien on the property by the Grand River Conservation authority has delayed the completion of the transfer and the payment of the settlement.

Geil runs his trucking, hauling landscaping business as well as a farming operation on the property. Bratton is a school teacher with a good income and secure employment. Geil and Connors moved into a trailer on the farm property on May 27th, 2012 presumably to save money for accommodation and make it convenient for Geil to operate his business. A large number of incidents have occurred at the property including the bulldozing and spray painting which the complainant alleges cause her fear for her safety and for damage to her property and that of the other parties she has named including their son Asher.

[6] I have reviewed Exhibit number 2; the separation agreement entered into by Bratton and Geil and signed on November 7, 2011. It is a comprehensive agreement. In respect to the farm property, it provides that Bratton can reside in the matrimonial home up to 60 days after the payment is made and the transfer is registered, paragraphs 12.1 to 12.4 deal with this aspect. It is silent and does not prohibit Geil from residing elsewhere on the property or continuing to use it for business purposes. I accept the testimony of the parties that the property consists of 85 acres more or less.

[7] The separation agreement is very detailed about the care, custody, education, medical treatment, access and dispute resolution processes in respect to the child Asher Geil.

[8] I heard testimony from Janet Bratton, her brother Thomas Bratton, Jason Geil and Michel Connors. All parties' testimony seemed credible and questions appeared to be answered to the best of their ability. At times the testimony became very emotional which is expected when lives are changed and love is lost. Bratton was clearly upset about how she first heard on June 7, 2011 of Geil's relationship with Connors discussed as a fact by two lawyers involved in the court hearing over the Grand River Conservation Authority issue [source of the lien on the property which prevents the financing being obtained to permit transfer of the title].

Analysis of Specific Incidents

[9] I find that a family pet died near the railway tracks on the farm property, and that damage to various vehicles and the windows of the matrimonial home occurred on the dates alleged, but I cannot attribute or find on the balance of probabilities who killed the dog or who caused damage to various property, other than the bulldozing and lawn spraying incidents which I will deal with later.

[10] I heard testimony from both parties and it is not disputed that Geil has poor relations with his neighbours. Vehicles have been damaged including Geil's on more than one occasion. There is not one witness, and no evidence to support Geil causing the damage to the vehicles or the matrimonial home windows, nor is there evidence to pick one of two or three neighbours with whom he has poor relationships as probably causing the damage. Thomas Bratton offered no evidence as to the cause of the damages, only that some occurred when he resided with his sister Janet Bratton in the farm house. Similarly the family dog's death occurred outside and near the railway tracks. Its death is more likely attributable to a coyote attack than to anything else. Jason Geil testimony satisfied me that the death of that dog was as upsetting to him as it was to Janet Bratton. The dog's death and vehicle and window damages affected both parties. There is insufficient evidence to attribute the cause of the damages to any person.

[11] The separation agreement also deals with matrimonial property and vehicles. It releases the parties under clause 17.1 to 17.4 from any other obligation in respect to property and compensation for property. The issue of who provides and pays for cell phones was not dealt with separately by the agreement other than a general disclaimer for any claim by either party against the other. The suggestion by Janet Bratton that Geil interfered with his own ability to arrange access to their child Asher by cutting off her cell phone is maybe true for the day or week it happened but should not have interfered longer as it is anticipated in clause 4.1 to 4.24 of the separation agreement that each party will "keep the other informed of their current address, email address and emergency telephones numbers" which presumes those matters are their own responsibility and presumes in my opinion that they have the ability to be communicated with in that fashion. There is no requirement that Geil continue to pay for Bratton's cell phone, email or telephone costs. The method of disconnecting her telephone is somewhat surprising or abrupt and may be displeasing but it is not a ground for fear of personal injury or damage to property.

[12] In respect to the bulldozing and lawn spraying on the lawn area of the matrimonial home, I understand that the parties are frustrated with their inability to complete the terms of the separation agreement because the lien on the property prevents the transfer of title and the concurrent refinancing of the mortgage to pay out Bratton's interest. However it does not say in the agreement that Geil does not have the ability to landscape, change, alter or improve the property as he sees fit. All it says is that Bratton can live in the matrimonial home until up to 60 days after title is transferred. Consequently, as abrupt, shocking petty and immature as the timing to landscape by Geil was, it does not validate any fear for damage to property or injury as it is his property too and in no sense was there any risk of injury to Bratton. In my opinion, these regrettable actions do not make grounds for a peace bond.

Law

[13] I permitted hearsay evidence and my position is that reliable and trustworthy hearsay evidence is permissible in a peace bond hearing based on the cases of R. v. Budreo, [2000] O.J. No. 72; R. v. George, [2007] O.J. No. 120; R. v. McGraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72.

[14] As outlined at the beginning of this decision, section 810 of the Criminal Code provides that an information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or common-law partner or child or will damage his or her property. Thomas Bratton testified but I did not hear any evidence that he feared Geil or Connor for the time he lived on the farm property with his sister. He no longer resides on the farm property. His testimony confirmed damage had occurred in suspicious circumstances but he could not shed any light on who caused it.

[15] There is no evidence to support any relief by peace bond for Thomas Bratton.

[16] We heard no evidence from Courtney Geil. No evidence was led nor any grounds for fear alleged on behalf of Courtney Geil. She did not testify. In these circumstances it is not appropriate to include her as a person seeking or needing relief in this peace bond application.

Facts, Law & Conclusion

[17] I have reviewed the material facts which I outlined in the above paragraphs. I have had an opportunity to assess the witnesses who testified before me. I have come to the conclusion that Geil and Connor were inconsiderate and annoying to bulldoze the yard and spray paint the grass under the pretext of improving the landscaping around the matrimonial home in the manner and at the time that they did it, although they had the legal right to do it. Similarly calling the police to check up on Asher's welfare on the date and time Geil did it was his right but in my opinion was unnecessary in the circumstances.

[18] Janet Bratton is a very sensitive and emotional individual who questions Geil's motives and has doubts about his interest in seeing their child Asher, but her action of refusing to get a cell phone, similarly inhibits easy access arrangements to be made. Annoyance cannot be equated with fear. In my opinion, the annoyances and impulsive behaviours exhibited by Geil are not grounds for fear of personal injury or damage to property on the balance of probabilities in these circumstances.

[19] Janet Bratton's lawyer Mr. Ted Dueck emailed Jason Geil on May 11, 2012 included the following paragraph in his email on behalf of Bratton:

"You have a contractual obligation in the present separation agreement to transfer the Suburban to Janet. Attaching a condition that her brother move out is not appropriate. If you stop insuring the Suburban, the only person you are putting at risk is yourself and your corporation. Janet will drive it as an uninsured vehicle. You are the one at risk on that, not her, so that doesn't make a lot of sense to me."

[20] This email transmission is indicative of the hyperbole flowing on both sides. Geil alleged making a new condition before transferring ownership of the Suburban and Bratton through her lawyer saying it will be driven even if Geil stops insuring it. Janet Bratton testified she would not have driven the vehicle if it was uninsured. But meanwhile her lawyer made that assertion on her behalf 6 or more months before she testified. The damage to the ongoing relationship to act in the best interest of the child is occurring from the actions of both parties.

[21] I will paraphrase myself from a case where my decision was referred to me by defence counsel. Intimate relationships between two individuals are often fraught with emotion and uncertainty. Most people have experienced the breakup of a relationship with someone whom they thought they loved at one time or another. Some have reconciled days weeks months and even years later. It is the human condition to seek a bond with another human. If or when one party becomes disenchanted, it is easy to understand how any action or communication from the other party may become an annoyance, or how any random or malicious damage caused by a person or by nature in the case of the dog, or by a person or persons such as disgruntled neighbours, in the case of the vehicle and window damages, could be suspected to be caused by the other party.

[22] Based on my assessment of the evidence I cannot find evidence to bring any of the damage to property above the level of suspicion. I cannot find any evidence to support a fear of injury to the person.

[23] It is regrettable given the obligation of Geil to pay $200,000.00 to Bratton upon transfer of title, that the parties cannot come to an interim agreement where Ms. Bratton vacates the premises and relieves herself of the continuing payment of the mortgage as Geil has suggested since those payments do not increase Bratton's payout figure. It may be in the child's best interests to have his parents living at different addresses to avoid continual unwanted conflicts real or imagined.

[24] The current living arrangements whereby Geil and Connors live on the farm a short distance from Bratton invites conflict in circumstances where Bratton has hard feelings over the breakup and subsequent actions of Geil. Conflict such as Geil taking up with a new living partner Connor, and that new partner taking pictures of Bratton with her son to prove Bratton leaves the premises and therefore has no fear of her and Geil.

[25] Conflict such as Bratton somehow acquiring the notes made by Connor in Connor's handwriting which notes were made when Connor and Geil went to counselling. Bratton then attributed Geil's texts and emails as being written by Connor and refuses to answer the emails or texts she suspects coming from Connor. Geil claims he kept the notes to refer to them and to help him think through his actions and prevent himself from over reacting.

[26] None of these petty accusations and the continuing conflict is in the best interest of the child Asher Geil. This court has no ability to make a decision to alleviate the problem in the best interests of the child. The parties agreed in the separation agreement to act in the best interests of the child and they might want to start. That is not being done by either party in the circumstances heard by this Court.

[27] The Peace Bond application is dismissed.

Released: January 10th, 2013

Signed: "Justice of the Peace James Ziegler"